Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable domain context beyond that: the legal sources (Law 2429 plus Diyanet), the supported window 2022–2035, the business-day definition, and the 13:00 half-day rule for eves. It does not say how out-of-range years are handled, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining sentences carry useful coverage and half-day semantics. It is a little dense, and the business-day definition is tangential to listing holidays, but nothing is gratuitous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation and read-only annotations, the description supplies the remaining domain context an agent needs: calendar authority, supported year window, and half-day eve behavior. Only the out-of-range or error behavior is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single year parameter is already documented with its 2022–2035 range. The description only restates 'of a year' and the same range, adding no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: lists all public holidays of a given year in Türkiye, with names, types, half-day eves and administrative leave. The resource is clearly distinct from the business-day siblings, though it never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the holiday calendar for a year. There is no explicit when-to-use versus check_business_day, count_business_days or add_business_days, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.